Urbanities, Vol. 3 · No 2 · November 2013 © 2013 Urbanities Lithuanians in Norway: Between ‘Here’ and ‘There’1 Darius Daukšas (Vilnius University) [email protected] This article draws on findings from fieldwork on Lithuanian immigrants in Oslo. The main focus is on the construction of identity of immigrants from Lithuania in Norway using transnationalism as a theoretical approach. It is argued that immigrants’ sense of belonging to Norway is influenced by the Norwegian context where the concept of we (Norwegians) is defined using ethnic categories, meanwhile others are seen as different in terms of their ethnicity. This context creates difficulties for Lithuanian migrants regarding integration in the Norwegian society. However, despite the fact they come from the Eastern Europe, the ‘white race’ of Lithuanian migrants allows them to be less identifiable as immigrants, and think that their position in the hierarchical structure of migrants is superior compared to others. The fact that immigrants retain their Lithuanian citizenship illustrates the relationship of transnational nation with the state (although the migrants from Lithuania permanently reside in Norway, they remain part of Lithuania through maintaining their citizenship and continuous participation in the political life of Lithuania). Key words: immigration, Norway, Lithuania, ethnicity, citizenship ‘Yes Sir we are legal we are, though we are not as legal as you. No Sir we're not equal no, though we are both from the EU. We build your homes and wash your dishes. Keep you your hands all soft and clean. But one of these days you'll realise Eastern Europe is in your genes’ (Excerpt from Lithuania’s song for the 2010 Eurovision Song Contest in Oslo) Lithuanian immigrants are a relatively new group in Norway. Research suggests that sporadic immigration of Lithuanians to Norway began and gradually gained momentum in the 1990s, with only a few isolated cases observed before that date (in sharp contrast with such historically popular destinations as the US and UK). 2 Norway is now Eastern European migrants’ favourite Scandinavian destination (IMDi-rapport 2008: 77). 1 This article is a part of Darius Daukšas‘ Postdoctoral Fellowship at Vilnius University. The Postdoctoral fellowship is funded by the European Union Structural Funds project ‘Postdoctoral Fellowship Implementation in Lithuania’ as part of the Measure for Enhancing Mobility of Scholars and Other Researchers and the Promotion of Student Research (VP1-3.1-ŠMM-01) of the Program of Human Resources Development Action Plan. 2 This discussion is based on two fieldworks conducted in 2008 (in Oslo and Halden) and 2012 (in Oslo). The survey from 16 March–13 April 2008 was conducted as part of a project called ‘Retention of Lithuanian Identity under Conditions of Europeanisation and Globalisation: Patterns of Lithuanian-ness in Response to Identity Politics in Ireland, Norway, Spain, the UK and the US’ (Scientific supervisor: Vytis Čiubrinskas; project funded by the Lithuanian National Science and Studies Foundation). A total of 25 Lithuanian immigrants living in Norway were surveyed during the research. The survey from 4 June–3 51 Urbanities, Vol. 3 · No 2 · November 2013 © 2013 Urbanities According to Norway’s official statistics, 28,600 Lithuanians are currently based permanently in the country.3 This is the second-largest immigrant population from the new EU states after the Polish (77,000);4 third after the Swedes (35,600).5 In 2008, IMDi (Integrerings- og mangfoldsdirektoratet, the Directorate of Integration and Diversity) published a research report on immigrants from Poland and the Baltic states called ‘Vi Blir’ (We’re Staying). This qualitative research was based on a sample of 1,013 respondents, 69% from Poland, 20% from Lithuania, 5% from Latvia and 6% from Estonia. This distribution reflected the immigrant proportions according to official statistics at the time. As the title suggests, one of the survey’s key findings was that immigrants from these countries were planning a longer stay in Norway than was initially expected. The survey also identified problems with integration into Norwegian society, highlighting the existing divide between the dominant majority on the one hand and new immigrants on the other. Using the above research as a starting point, this paper discusses issues involving Lithuanian integration into Norwegian society. There is a particular emphasis on Lithuanian immigrants’ attitudes towards and relationships with the dominant Norwegian majority and other migrant groups. The present article also aims to provide a brief overview of immigrants’ transnational practices, accentuating citizenship as a bond between the country of origin and the host country. The problem: Integration and subsequent assimilation are (or used to be) understood as unavoidable stages of absorbing immigrants into a new society. In today’s world we speak of immigrants’ multi-stranded ties that encompass several countries, thus rejecting full integration and assimilation into the new society and remaining part of their country of origin. The discussion therefore addresses the question of how or whether immigrants integrate6 into a new society and at the same time remain part of their country of origin. As an immigrant-receiving country, Norway is made interesting by the fact that, in contrast with other countries such as France, its nationals tend to construct their image of ‘self’ and ‘other’ via innate ethnic categories. This partly explains why immigrants struggle to integrate July 2012 was conducted as part of a postdoctoral research project (the postdoctoral fellowship is being funded by the European Union Structural Funds project ‘Postdoctoral Fellowship Implementation in Lithuania’). A total of 15 interviews were conducted. A criterion of a minimum 3 years’ stay was set for survey participants, in order to eliminate seasonal immigrants and ensure that respondents had considerable experience of living abroad. These surveys sought to identify patterns that form migrant identity and the relationships of migrants to Norway and Lithuania. 3 Statistics Norway. Available at: http://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/statistikker/innvbef, accessed 15 August 2013. 4 See n. 3 5 See n. 3 6 The notion of ‘integration’ is employed in this paper in order to understand how immigrants are perceived by the dominant majority and other ethnic groups and how they themselves perceive their relationships with these groups. 52 Urbanities, Vol. 3 · No 2 · November 2013 © 2013 Urbanities into Norwegian society and why a fairly clear divide remains between the dominant majority and ethnically- and racially-defined minorities (immigrants). On the other hand, alongside integration processes within society, present-day migration is viewed in theoretical literature as a quantitatively and qualitatively new phenomenon. Multi-stranded ties created by contemporary migrants exceed the boundaries of a single state. Transnationalism holds that the aim of contemporary (im)migrants is not to integrate themselves into a new society, but to do the opposite by preserving and maintaining ties with their country of origin. Immigrants, Migrants, Transmigrants and Deterritorialised Belonging. Contemporary transnationalism7 studies are based on research which stresses that present-day migrants traverse the boundaries of one national state and simultaneously participate in several national realities (Coutin 2006: 326). The notion of immigrants previously embraced in social science circles was criticised by the transnationalism camp because it primarily referred to people who arrive in another country after abandoning ties with their country of origin, create a home in the new country and adapt to the society (Basch et al. 1994: 3-4). On the other hand, the migrant notion primarily refers to people who temporarily stay in a new country to earn money and then return home after a certain period of time (Basch et al. 1994: 4). In reality, however, both these notions proved ineffective for addressing contemporary migration processes. Present-day (im)migrants maintain ties, patterns of life and ideologies that traverse the boundaries of one or several states. The concept of the transmigrant entered the scene to describe (im)migrants who become part of a new society without abandoning ties with the previous one. This concept seeks to show that existing theories on migration, usually based on an evolutionary model that sees migrants as integrating into the new society and eventually becoming fully assimilated (see Brettell 2000, Eriksen 2007: 179), fail to explain how present-day (im)migrants are able to retain multi-stranded ties with several societies simultaneously against a backdrop of globalisation. This transmigrant concept stands in sharp contrast with the diaspora notion, which has hitherto been popular in the social science arena for describing ‘a permanent state of emergency, an unfulfilled need for rootedness, insularity […] in an alien context and severed links’ (Eriksen 2007: 177-178). The concept of transnationalism refers, in contrast, to dynamic and changing identities, and, let me reiterate, to creative and selective integration in a host country while 7 This article does not endeavour to present an exhaustive analysis of the transnationalism paradigm and its evolution. In its broadest sense, here transnationalism is understood along the lines of the definition given by Basch et al: ‘We define “transnationalism” as the processes by which immigrants forge